Evidence-based Management: Blog

Creativity and Constraint, Part 2

In my last blog entry I used Jon Elster’s work to discuss how two kinds of constraint could be enabling to creativity: specific and arbitrary. In this entry I want to explore the notion of specific constraint. These are situations where introducing certain specific constraints aids rather than hinders creativity.

Elster gives much attention in Ulysses Unbound to the idea of precommitment. This occurs when people precommit to a set of constraints in order to reduce the influence of “passion” at some point in the future. Elster argues that people can often anticipate that when a particular decision or task arises they will be under stress and be likely to choose options that, while not attractive in the present, might be downright seductive at the time the decision must be made. In these cases they may choose to precommit themselves to a set of future constraints.

One example Elster employs is that of an alcoholic who turns down invitations to social events because he/she knows that they will not have the will power to resist alcohol once they are at the party. Elster also employs substantial evidence from more ‘far flung’ domains including the tendency of tourism in Amish communities to reinforce Amish lifestyle because, by inviting tourism, the Amish precommit to a way of life consistent with Amish tradition.

In the context of creative work, precommitment can help produce better results. Take, for example, the case of a designer who wants to create something relatively innovative but always has the option of falling back on a boring, but reliable design if need be. This is often the case in industry and contributes to a phenomena termed ‘satisficing’ in management literature (see Wikipedia entry). Simply put, satisficing is the tendency to do only what is absolutely necessary, rather than what is optimal.

Our designer may wish to innovate now, knowing that a more creative solution, while risky, is more likely to optimally fit the project needs. But the designer may also have the sense that once deadlines loom they are likely to choose the easier route. In this case, Elster argues that people often will, and probably should, introduce specific constraints that will prevent such a decision in the future. Often such precommitment takes the form of attaching penalties to the choices that are to be avoided (if not eliminated).

From the standpoint of a manager overseeing creative work, the implication is two-fold. First, it is useful to talk with creative workers about crucial decision-making events well before they happen. How do these workers feel when ‘crunch-time’ is upon them? How does their cognition of options and goals change when stress is introduced to the process? What options would be useful to eliminate or make less attractive? Second, the manager should introduce these constraints and ‘stick to their guns’ once deadlines loom. Allowing creative professionals to precommit in this way can make for much better end results. It also happens to be a strategy that fits with some of the best available research on creativity and constraint.

In my next entry I will take up the issue of arbitrary constraint and its relationship to creativity.

....................................................................................................................................................
Posted in Academic research by Ralph Maurer | | Permalink |